I prefer the second, as it keeps things a bit more type-safe or at
least type-consistent.
On 8/3/07, pablosantosluac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rafael,
>
> So, you basically mean changing the API from
>
> MyType[] GetData()
>
> to something like
>
> byte[] GetData()
>
> and perform the marshalling yourself?
>
> Or maybe something like
> MyArrayType GetData()
>
> and then MyArrayType gets a customized serializer?
>
> Thanks!
>
> pablo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rafael Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mirco Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "pablosantosluac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] Serialization performance + remoting
>
>
> > Pablo,
> >
> > I should add that probably custom serialization should happen at the
> > Array level, not each element, or you may end experiencing a similar
> > problem with System.Runtime.Serialization.ObjectIDGenerator.
> >
> > If you know that all the array elements are different instances (no
> > repeated references), it will be a huge gain, because that is
> > something you don't have a way of letting the system provided
> > serializer know, so it will keep trying to generate ids and check in
> > the other end to point all references to a single deserialized
> > instance.
> >
> > In those cases I normally serialize the whole array into a very
> > compact and concise blob (forget the fields descriptors or send them
> > just once) and deserialize at the other end. The added complexity is
> > paid well in performance, for large sets of objects.
> >
> > In some cases I go even further and use compression/decompression of
> > the blob, to achieve even less transport time, I just experiment a bit
> > to find the right threshold (minimum size) where compression is
> > beneficial (it is kind of a lookup table one have to construct, to
> > adjust to the real speed of the connection).
> >
> > Hope it helps,
> >
> > On 8/3/07, Mirco Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:54 +0200, pablosantosluac wrote:
> >> > Thanks Mirco,
> >> >
> >> > Well, all my objects are already marked as [Serializable] instead of
> >> > extending the MarshalByRefObject.
> >>
> >> Ok, then you are passing the objects by value already.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So, you mean if I extend the class it will go worse?
> >>
> >> Yes :)
> >> As it will only transfer a proxy object which will always make remoting
> >> calls for each method or property usage.
> >> So code like this is very bad:
> >> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >> Console.WriteLine(myRemoteObject.SomeProperty);
> >> }
> >> that will cause 10 remoting calls...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The sample I'm using returns the 4700 objects in a single call (an
> >> > array is
> >> > returned)
> >> Hmmm ok, so you have performance problems with the binary serialization
> >> itself, not with the remoting/call overhead.
> >>
> >> Then you might want to implement custom optimized binary serialization.
> >> This can be done by implementing the serializable interface yourself. I
> >> have not done this yet, but I will (for smuxi), as the built in binary
> >> serialization of objects in MS .NET and Mono is pretty slow (actually
> >> damn slow IMHO). The problem is that they are very generic
> >> implementations to fit all cases, AFAIK.
> >>
> >> How to implement faster binary serialization check this out:
> >> http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/FastSerialization.asp
> >>
> >> Maybe I will start a SmartBinarySerializer project :-P not sure...
> >> As there is no free (as in MIT/X11, BSD, LGPL, whatever license)
> >> implementation of an optimized binary serialization :(
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Mirco 'meebey' Bauer
> >>
> >> PGP-Key:
> >> http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEEF946C8
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> >> Version: 3.12
> >> GIT d s-:+ a-- C++ UL++++$ P L++$>+++$ E- W+++$ N o? K- w++>! O---- M-
> >> V? PS
> >> PE+ Y- PGP++ t 5+ X++ R tv+ b+ DI? D+ G>++ e h! r->++ y?
> >> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> >> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
> >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good
> > intentions."
> > Augusten Burroughs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>
--
Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
---------------------------------------
"I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions."
Augusten Burroughs
_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
